Don't hold your breath waiting for an invitation to this year's Yolo County Democratic Central Committee Bean Feed. Under the new federal campaign spending law, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, the beans and raffle prizes, if donated by local businesses or unions, would be considered "soft money." In the past, proceeds from the Bean Feed have been used for voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. Under McCain-Feingold, this is prohibited.

If there were ever a law of unintended consequences, it is McCain-Feingold. In its rush to rid the political system of the evils of so-called "soft money, " Congress managed to federalize the nation's political system -- right down to electing members of your local Mosquito Abatement Board.

What is corrupt about holding a Bean Feed so a local party can register new members and get them to the polls? The miserable turnout in recent elections suggests parties should do more, not less, to encourage voters to exercise their most precious democratic rights.

Two years ago, California voters enacted Proposition 34, a measure that limits campaign contributions but allows parties to fund activities such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. This is what parties should be doing.

That won't happen under McCain-Feingold, and it is this fatal flaw that makes the law unconstitutional. Both the California Democratic and Republican parties filed a lawsuit in federal District Court challenging McCain-Feingold. In May, the district court overturned much of the law, although it later stayed enforcement pending a final decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments were held on Monday.

McCain-Feingold imposes a federal regulatory regime upon all political parties, from the national parties to local volunteer central committees. Among the plaintiffs in the suit are the Yolo County Democratic Committee and the Santa Cruz County Republican Committee. Both are small local party volunteer organizations that run voter registration drives and work to turn out the party faithful on election day.

But under McCain-Feingold these activities are considered "federal election activity" -- even if only one federal race is on the ballot and the party activities are directed only at local candidates and ballot measures. All federal election activity must be funded with federally regulated contributions.

Here's the heart of the problem: McCain-Feingold defines federal election activity so broadly it covers almost any activity by a state or local party. A door-hanger urging support for a local ballot measure -- a typical get-out-the vote activity -- would be subject to federal restrictions if it includes the date of the election and location of the voter's polling place. Why? Because on the same date and in the same polling place, voters will decide federal races.

What's more, McCain-Feingold cuts off coordinating campaign activities among national, state and local parties. A California national committee member of the Republican Party who lives in Santa Cruz cannot participate in the Santa Cruz County Republican Committee's or state Republican Committee's spending decisions involving voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities without risking felony prosecution.

Moreover, no political party will be able to finance a voter registration drive within 120 days of an election that includes federal candidates without complying with complex and restrictive federal laws.

Thus, McCain-Feingold has the absurd result of making political parties largely irrelevant. How did we get into this mess? As Congress tinkered with the national campaign financing system, it cast a wider and wider net to rein in all forms of campaign funding and managed to outlaw the financing of the most fundamental exercise of a democracy -- getting people to the polls.

This is far from the only defect in McCain-Feingold. The measure limits "electioneering communications," such as television and radio advertisements critical of a federal candidate, within 60 days of an election. This provision silences the voices of any pesky citizen groups -- the Sierra Club, NAACP and NRA for example -- that might criticize a Congress member's voting record around election time.

Fortunately, the courts have taken a dim view of such clear violations of First Amendment rights. Federal courts have also protected the rights of political parties to run their own affairs. It is hard to believe the Supreme Court will allow this misguided federal law to undermine political parties' legitimate and historical role in election campaigns.

Abraham Lincoln explained how to win elections: Identify your voters and get them to the polls. No one would claim that get-out-the-vote drives corrupt the political process, yet McCain-Feingold places an unnecessary and unconstitutional roadblock in the path of this most essential action of a democracy.